Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 511 | control, N = 251 | treatment, N = 261 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 51 | 51.12 ± 12.43 (25 - 74) | 50.50 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 51.71 ± 12.08 (32 - 72) | 0.732 |
gender | 51 | 0.322 | |||
f | 34 (67%) | 15 (60%) | 19 (73%) | ||
m | 17 (33%) | 10 (40%) | 7 (27%) | ||
occupation | 51 | 0.975 | |||
day_training | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 5 (9.8%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
other | 2 (3.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
part_time | 9 (18%) | 5 (20%) | 4 (15%) | ||
retired | 13 (25%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
unemploy | 13 (25%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (27%) | ||
marital | 51 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (9.8%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
married | 11 (22%) | 5 (20%) | 6 (23%) | ||
none | 29 (57%) | 14 (56%) | 15 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
edu | 51 | 0.916 | |||
bachelor | 14 (27%) | 6 (24%) | 8 (31%) | ||
diploma | 9 (18%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
primary | 4 (7.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 13 (25%) | 7 (28%) | 6 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
fam_income | 51 | 0.673 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (9.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (18%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 7 (14%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (7.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 5 (9.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 4 (15%) | ||
medication | 51 | 42 (82%) | 21 (84%) | 21 (81%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 51 | 15.90 ± 12.38 (0 - 56) | 17.66 ± 13.98 (1 - 56) | 14.21 ± 10.63 (0 - 35) | 0.326 |
onset_age | 51 | 35.22 ± 12.98 (15 - 62) | 32.85 ± 11.65 (16 - 55) | 37.50 ± 14.00 (15 - 62) | 0.204 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 511 | control, N = 251 | treatment, N = 261 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 51 | 3.31 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.24 ± 1.33 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.682 |
recovery_stage_b | 51 | 18.18 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 18.28 ± 2.85 (9 - 23) | 18.08 ± 2.59 (14 - 23) | 0.791 |
ras_confidence | 51 | 30.61 ± 4.78 (19 - 40) | 30.32 ± 4.34 (19 - 40) | 30.88 ± 5.23 (20 - 39) | 0.677 |
ras_willingness | 51 | 12.33 ± 1.93 (7 - 15) | 12.36 ± 1.70 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 2.15 (7 - 15) | 0.924 |
ras_goal | 51 | 17.71 ± 2.87 (12 - 24) | 17.64 ± 2.86 (12 - 23) | 17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 0.874 |
ras_reliance | 51 | 13.39 ± 3.03 (8 - 20) | 13.20 ± 2.80 (8 - 18) | 13.58 ± 3.28 (8 - 20) | 0.661 |
ras_domination | 51 | 10.06 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.72 ± 1.86 (7 - 15) | 9.42 ± 2.59 (3 - 14) | 0.046 |
symptom | 51 | 29.88 ± 9.83 (14 - 56) | 29.12 ± 8.69 (14 - 45) | 30.62 ± 10.93 (15 - 56) | 0.592 |
slof_work | 51 | 22.71 ± 4.74 (10 - 30) | 23.04 ± 4.53 (15 - 30) | 22.38 ± 5.00 (10 - 30) | 0.627 |
slof_relationship | 51 | 25.90 ± 5.87 (11 - 35) | 25.88 ± 6.35 (13 - 35) | 25.92 ± 5.51 (11 - 35) | 0.979 |
satisfaction | 51 | 20.67 ± 6.76 (5 - 30) | 19.32 ± 6.41 (5 - 29) | 21.96 ± 6.95 (5 - 30) | 0.165 |
mhc_emotional | 51 | 11.33 ± 3.63 (4 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.10 (6 - 17) | 11.69 ± 4.10 (4 - 18) | 0.476 |
mhc_social | 51 | 14.84 ± 5.02 (6 - 26) | 15.12 ± 5.03 (7 - 26) | 14.58 ± 5.10 (6 - 23) | 0.704 |
mhc_psychological | 51 | 22.10 ± 6.17 (6 - 36) | 21.72 ± 5.98 (10 - 33) | 22.46 ± 6.45 (6 - 36) | 0.673 |
resilisnce | 51 | 16.92 ± 4.68 (6 - 25) | 16.68 ± 4.67 (6 - 24) | 17.15 ± 4.76 (7 - 25) | 0.721 |
social_provision | 51 | 13.65 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 13.40 ± 2.89 (8 - 20) | 13.88 ± 3.48 (5 - 19) | 0.592 |
els_value_living | 51 | 17.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 23) | 16.88 ± 2.49 (12 - 22) | 17.50 ± 3.49 (5 - 23) | 0.470 |
els_life_fulfill | 51 | 13.00 ± 3.34 (4 - 18) | 12.08 ± 3.28 (5 - 17) | 13.88 ± 3.22 (4 - 18) | 0.053 |
els | 51 | 30.20 ± 5.66 (9 - 40) | 28.96 ± 4.70 (20 - 36) | 31.38 ± 6.31 (9 - 40) | 0.127 |
social_connect | 51 | 26.78 ± 9.72 (8 - 48) | 26.96 ± 8.59 (8 - 45) | 26.62 ± 10.87 (8 - 48) | 0.901 |
shs_agency | 51 | 14.22 ± 4.74 (3 - 20) | 13.60 ± 4.51 (3 - 20) | 14.81 ± 4.97 (3 - 20) | 0.369 |
shs_pathway | 51 | 16.57 ± 3.84 (4 - 22) | 15.96 ± 3.65 (8 - 22) | 17.15 ± 4.01 (4 - 22) | 0.272 |
shs | 51 | 30.78 ± 8.00 (7 - 42) | 29.56 ± 7.75 (14 - 41) | 31.96 ± 8.20 (7 - 42) | 0.288 |
esteem | 51 | 12.53 ± 1.25 (10 - 15) | 12.64 ± 1.19 (10 - 14) | 12.42 ± 1.33 (10 - 15) | 0.542 |
mlq_search | 51 | 15.25 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 15.12 ± 3.24 (6 - 21) | 15.38 ± 3.41 (3 - 20) | 0.778 |
mlq_presence | 51 | 13.84 ± 4.03 (3 - 21) | 14.16 ± 3.16 (6 - 20) | 13.54 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 0.587 |
mlq | 51 | 29.10 ± 6.72 (6 - 41) | 29.28 ± 6.19 (12 - 40) | 28.92 ± 7.32 (6 - 41) | 0.852 |
empower | 51 | 19.86 ± 4.31 (6 - 28) | 19.76 ± 3.87 (11 - 24) | 19.96 ± 4.77 (6 - 28) | 0.869 |
ismi_resistance | 51 | 14.80 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 14.84 ± 2.29 (12 - 19) | 14.77 ± 3.28 (5 - 20) | 0.929 |
ismi_discrimation | 51 | 11.29 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 12.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 18) | 10.42 ± 3.15 (5 - 19) | 0.046 |
sss_affective | 51 | 9.78 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 9.23 ± 4.62 (3 - 18) | 0.337 |
sss_behavior | 51 | 9.57 ± 4.29 (3 - 18) | 10.28 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 8.88 ± 4.27 (3 - 18) | 0.250 |
sss_cognitive | 51 | 8.14 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 8.20 ± 4.19 (3 - 18) | 8.08 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 0.917 |
sss | 51 | 27.49 ± 11.69 (9 - 54) | 28.84 ± 10.74 (9 - 54) | 26.19 ± 12.61 (9 - 54) | 0.424 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.24 | 0.235 | 2.78, 3.70 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.329 | -0.500, 0.789 | 0.662 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.800 | 0.397 | 0.022, 1.58 | 0.056 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.385 | 0.548 | -1.46, 0.690 | 0.490 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.3 | 0.551 | 17.2, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.203 | 0.771 | -1.72, 1.31 | 0.793 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.550 | 0.754 | -0.927, 2.03 | 0.472 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.011 | 1.041 | -2.05, 2.03 | 0.992 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 1.021 | 28.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.565 | 1.430 | -2.24, 3.37 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.73 | 1.299 | -0.814, 4.28 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.80 | 1.792 | -5.31, 1.71 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.383 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.052 | 0.536 | -1.10, 0.999 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.604 | 0.489 | -1.56, 0.355 | 0.230 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.899 | 0.675 | -0.425, 2.22 | 0.196 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.613 | 16.4, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.129 | 0.859 | -1.55, 1.81 | 0.881 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.435 | 0.817 | -2.04, 1.17 | 0.599 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.827 | 1.127 | -1.38, 3.04 | 0.470 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.592 | 12.0, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.377 | 0.829 | -1.25, 2.00 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.031 | 0.532 | -1.07, 1.01 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.48 | 0.734 | 0.041, 2.92 | 0.058 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.451 | 9.84, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.30 | 0.632 | -2.54, -0.058 | 0.044 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.408 | 0.757 | -1.89, 1.08 | 0.594 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.67 | 1.046 | -0.376, 3.73 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.066 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 2.002 | 25.2, 33.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.50 | 2.803 | -4.00, 6.99 | 0.596 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.25 | 1.555 | -4.30, 1.80 | 0.432 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.50 | 2.144 | -5.71, 2.70 | 0.492 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.0 | 0.957 | 21.2, 24.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.655 | 1.341 | -3.28, 1.97 | 0.627 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.447 | 0.960 | -2.33, 1.43 | 0.647 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.319 | 1.324 | -2.91, 2.28 | 0.812 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.9 | 1.187 | 23.6, 28.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.043 | 1.662 | -3.21, 3.30 | 0.979 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.25 | 1.142 | -3.48, 0.992 | 0.288 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.18 | 1.575 | -1.91, 4.26 | 0.464 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.378 | 16.6, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.64 | 1.930 | -1.14, 6.42 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.44 | 1.838 | -0.166, 7.04 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.88 | 2.536 | -7.85, 2.09 | 0.267 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.738 | 9.51, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.732 | 1.034 | -1.29, 2.76 | 0.482 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.20 | 0.814 | -0.395, 2.79 | 0.155 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.68 | 1.122 | -3.88, 0.515 | 0.148 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 1.085 | 13.0, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.543 | 1.519 | -3.52, 2.43 | 0.722 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.70 | 1.348 | -0.944, 4.34 | 0.220 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 1.860 | -4.71, 2.58 | 0.571 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 1.317 | 19.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.742 | 1.844 | -2.87, 4.36 | 0.689 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.97 | 1.588 | -1.14, 5.08 | 0.227 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.90 | 2.190 | -7.20, 1.39 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.903 | 14.9, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.474 | 1.265 | -2.01, 2.95 | 0.709 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 1.118 | -1.46, 2.92 | 0.523 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.450 | 1.542 | -2.57, 3.47 | 0.773 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.621 | 12.2, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.485 | 0.869 | -1.22, 2.19 | 0.579 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.433 | 0.703 | -1.81, 0.946 | 0.545 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 0.970 | -0.416, 3.39 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.601 | 15.7, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.620 | 0.841 | -1.03, 2.27 | 0.464 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 0.700 | -0.332, 2.41 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.366 | 0.966 | -2.26, 1.53 | 0.708 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.638 | 10.8, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.80 | 0.894 | 0.052, 3.56 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.85 | 0.741 | 0.399, 3.30 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.17 | 1.022 | -3.17, 0.836 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.085 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.114 | 26.8, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.42 | 1.560 | -0.633, 5.48 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.86 | 1.238 | 0.433, 5.29 | 0.030 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.51 | 1.708 | -4.85, 1.84 | 0.387 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.900 | 23.2, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.345 | 2.661 | -5.56, 4.87 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.21 | 1.505 | -1.74, 4.17 | 0.430 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.654 | 2.076 | -3.41, 4.72 | 0.756 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.936 | 11.8, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.310 | -1.36, 3.78 | 0.361 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.52 | 0.978 | -0.399, 3.43 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.560 | 1.349 | -2.08, 3.20 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.736 | 14.5, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 1.031 | -0.827, 3.21 | 0.252 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.753 | -0.399, 2.55 | 0.168 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.146 | 1.038 | -2.18, 1.89 | 0.889 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.553 | 26.5, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.40 | 2.175 | -1.86, 6.66 | 0.275 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.50 | 1.480 | -0.401, 5.40 | 0.107 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.494 | 2.041 | -3.51, 4.49 | 0.811 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.243 | 12.2, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.340 | -0.884, 0.450 | 0.526 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.789 | 0.456 | -0.106, 1.68 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.264 | 0.631 | -1.50, 0.974 | 0.681 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.068 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.658 | 13.8, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.265 | 0.921 | -1.54, 2.07 | 0.775 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.968 | 1.044 | -1.08, 3.01 | 0.362 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 1.442 | -3.91, 1.75 | 0.460 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.2 | 0.784 | 12.6, 15.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.622 | 1.098 | -2.77, 1.53 | 0.574 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.21 | 1.025 | -0.796, 3.22 | 0.248 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.273 | 1.415 | -3.05, 2.50 | 0.849 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.334 | 26.7, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.357 | 1.868 | -4.02, 3.30 | 0.849 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.14 | 1.874 | -1.53, 5.82 | 0.264 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 2.587 | -6.39, 3.75 | 0.613 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.841 | 18.1, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.202 | 1.178 | -2.11, 2.51 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.702 | 0.618 | -0.509, 1.91 | 0.270 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.268 | 0.852 | -1.94, 1.40 | 0.756 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.532 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.071 | 0.745 | -1.53, 1.39 | 0.925 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.807 | 0.818 | -0.797, 2.41 | 0.333 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.487 | 1.130 | -2.70, 1.73 | 0.670 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.627 | 11.0, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.78 | 0.878 | -3.50, -0.057 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.66 | 0.757 | -3.15, -0.180 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.04 | 1.044 | -0.004, 4.09 | 0.062 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.818 | 8.76, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.13 | 1.146 | -3.37, 1.12 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.598 | 0.571 | -1.72, 0.520 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.305 | 0.787 | -1.24, 1.85 | 0.703 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.831 | 8.65, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.40 | 1.164 | -3.68, 0.887 | 0.236 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.55 | 0.686 | -2.89, -0.204 | 0.036 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.51 | 0.946 | -0.342, 3.37 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.20 | 0.847 | 6.54, 9.86 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.123 | 1.187 | -2.45, 2.20 | 0.918 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.757 | 0.750 | -0.712, 2.23 | 0.325 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 1.034 | -3.11, 0.943 | 0.308 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 2.324 | 24.3, 33.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.65 | 3.255 | -9.03, 3.73 | 0.420 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.27 | 1.523 | -4.26, 1.71 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.656 | 2.100 | -3.46, 4.77 | 0.758 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.24 (95% CI [2.78, 3.70], t(64) = 13.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.79], t(64) = 0.44, p = 0.660; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.02, 1.58], t(64) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.02, 1.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.69], t(64) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.28 (95% CI [17.20, 19.36], t(64) = 33.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.31], t(64) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.03], t(64) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.03], t(64) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -3.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.32 (95% CI [28.32, 32.32], t(64) = 29.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.24, 3.37], t(64) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.81, 4.28], t(64) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-5.31, 1.71], t(64) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.61, 13.11], t(64) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.00], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.36], t(64) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.22], t(64) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.44, 18.84], t(64) = 28.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.81], t(64) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.17], t(64) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.38, 3.04], t(64) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.04, 14.36], t(64) = 22.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.00], t(64) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.01], t(64) = -0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [0.04, 2.92], t(64) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.01, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.72 (95% CI [9.84, 11.60], t(64) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.54, -0.06], t(64) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.10, -0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.08], t(64) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.38, 3.73], t(64) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [25.20, 33.04], t(64) = 14.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-4.00, 6.99], t(64) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-4.30, 1.80], t(64) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-5.71, 2.70], t(64) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.04 (95% CI [21.16, 24.92], t(64) = 24.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-3.28, 1.97], t(64) = -0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.43], t(64) = -0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.91, 2.28], t(64) = -0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.88 (95% CI [23.55, 28.21], t(64) = 21.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.30], t(64) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 7.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.99], t(64) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-1.91, 4.26], t(64) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [16.62, 22.02], t(64) = 14.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.64, 95% CI [-1.14, 6.42], t(64) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.44, 95% CI [-0.17, 7.04], t(64) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.99])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.88, 95% CI [-7.85, 2.09], t(64) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.96 (95% CI [9.51, 12.41], t(64) = 14.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.76], t(64) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.79], t(64) = 1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.68, 95% CI [-3.88, 0.51], t(64) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [12.99, 17.25], t(64) = 13.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.52, 2.43], t(64) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.94, 4.34], t(64) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.79])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-4.71, 2.58], t(64) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [19.14, 24.30], t(64) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.87, 4.36], t(64) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.97, 95% CI [-1.14, 5.08], t(64) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.90, 95% CI [-7.20, 1.39], t(64) = -1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [14.91, 18.45], t(64) = 18.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.95], t(64) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.92], t(64) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.66])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.57, 3.47], t(64) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.18, 14.62], t(64) = 21.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.19], t(64) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.95], t(64) = -0.62, p = 0.539; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.39], t(64) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [15.70, 18.06], t(64) = 28.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.27], t(64) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.41], t(64) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.53], t(64) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.08 (95% CI [10.83, 13.33], t(64) = 18.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.05, 3.56], t(64) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.02, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.40, 3.30], t(64) = 2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.12, 0.99])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.17, 0.84], t(64) = -1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [26.78, 31.14], t(64) = 26.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.63, 5.48], t(64) = 1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.93])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [0.43, 5.29], t(64) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-4.85, 1.84], t(64) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.24, 30.68], t(64) = 14.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-5.56, 4.87], t(64) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.74, 4.17], t(64) = 0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-3.41, 4.72], t(64) = 0.32, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [11.77, 15.43], t(64) = 14.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.36, 3.78], t(64) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.40, 3.43], t(64) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.20], t(64) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.52, 17.40], t(64) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 3.21], t(64) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.55], t(64) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.89], t(64) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [26.52, 32.60], t(64) = 19.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-1.86, 6.66], t(64) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.50, 95% CI [-0.40, 5.40], t(64) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-3.51, 4.49], t(64) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.17) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.64 (95% CI [12.16, 13.12], t(64) = 52.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.45], t(64) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.68], t(64) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.97], t(64) = -0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.83, 16.41], t(64) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.07], t(64) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.01], t(64) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.91, 1.75], t(64) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.16 (95% CI [12.62, 15.70], t(64) = 18.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.53], t(64) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.80, 3.22], t(64) = 1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.82])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.50], t(64) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [26.67, 31.89], t(64) = 21.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-4.02, 3.30], t(64) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.14, 95% CI [-1.53, 5.82], t(64) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-6.39, 3.75], t(64) = -0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.76 (95% CI [18.11, 21.41], t(64) = 23.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.51], t(64) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.91], t(64) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.40], t(64) = -0.32, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.80, 15.88], t(64) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.39], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.41], t(64) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.73], t(64) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [10.97, 13.43], t(64) = 19.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.50, -0.06], t(64) = -2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.15, -0.18], t(64) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.04, 95% CI [-3.50e-03, 4.09], t(64) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.06e-03, 1.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.36 (95% CI [8.76, 11.96], t(64) = 12.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.37, 1.12], t(64) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.52], t(64) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.85], t(64) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.28 (95% CI [8.65, 11.91], t(64) = 12.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.68, 0.89], t(64) = -1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.89, -0.20], t(64) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.37], t(64) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.20 (95% CI [6.54, 9.86], t(64) = 9.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.45, 2.20], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.23], t(64) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.94], t(64) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [24.29, 33.39], t(64) = 12.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.65, 95% CI [-9.03, 3.73], t(64) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.26, 1.71], t(64) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-3.46, 4.77], t(64) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 225.649 | 232.394 | -109.824 | 219.649 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 226.425 | 239.916 | -107.212 | 214.425 | 5.224 | 3 | 0.156 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 334.545 | 341.290 | -164.272 | 328.545 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 339.312 | 352.803 | -163.656 | 327.312 | 1.232 | 3 | 0.745 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 419.125 | 425.871 | -206.563 | 413.125 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 423.231 | 436.722 | -205.615 | 411.231 | 1.894 | 3 | 0.595 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 282.145 | 288.891 | -138.073 | 276.145 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 286.070 | 299.561 | -137.035 | 274.070 | 2.075 | 3 | 0.557 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 348.086 | 354.831 | -171.043 | 342.086 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 353.375 | 366.866 | -170.688 | 341.375 | 0.710 | 3 | 0.871 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 336.813 | 343.558 | -165.406 | 330.813 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 334.367 | 347.858 | -161.183 | 322.367 | 8.446 | 3 | 0.038 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 317.626 | 324.371 | -155.813 | 311.626 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 317.763 | 331.254 | -152.882 | 305.763 | 5.862 | 3 | 0.119 |
symptom | null | 3 | 497.814 | 504.560 | -245.907 | 491.814 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 499.557 | 513.048 | -243.778 | 487.557 | 4.258 | 3 | 0.235 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 400.984 | 407.729 | -197.492 | 394.984 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 405.680 | 419.171 | -196.840 | 393.680 | 1.304 | 3 | 0.728 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 429.548 | 436.293 | -211.774 | 423.548 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 434.275 | 447.766 | -211.137 | 422.275 | 1.273 | 3 | 0.736 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 465.754 | 472.499 | -229.877 | 459.754 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 466.794 | 480.285 | -227.397 | 454.794 | 4.960 | 3 | 0.175 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 369.518 | 376.263 | -181.759 | 363.518 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 372.693 | 386.184 | -180.347 | 360.693 | 2.825 | 3 | 0.419 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 427.050 | 433.796 | -210.525 | 421.050 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 430.860 | 444.351 | -209.430 | 418.860 | 2.190 | 3 | 0.534 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 452.990 | 459.736 | -223.495 | 446.990 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 456.955 | 470.446 | -222.477 | 444.955 | 2.036 | 3 | 0.565 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 401.031 | 407.777 | -197.516 | 395.031 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 405.055 | 418.546 | -196.528 | 393.055 | 1.976 | 3 | 0.577 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 347.235 | 353.981 | -170.618 | 341.235 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 349.420 | 362.911 | -168.710 | 337.420 | 3.815 | 3 | 0.282 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 343.667 | 350.413 | -168.834 | 337.667 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 345.855 | 359.346 | -166.927 | 333.855 | 3.813 | 3 | 0.282 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 358.517 | 365.262 | -176.258 | 352.517 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 354.244 | 367.735 | -171.122 | 342.244 | 10.273 | 3 | 0.016 |
els | null | 3 | 433.166 | 439.911 | -213.583 | 427.166 | |||
els | random | 6 | 430.629 | 444.120 | -209.315 | 418.629 | 8.536 | 3 | 0.036 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 489.432 | 496.177 | -241.716 | 483.432 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 492.985 | 506.476 | -240.492 | 480.985 | 2.447 | 3 | 0.485 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 406.226 | 412.972 | -200.113 | 400.226 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 404.000 | 417.491 | -196.000 | 392.000 | 8.226 | 3 | 0.042 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 368.848 | 375.593 | -181.424 | 362.848 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 369.617 | 383.108 | -178.809 | 357.617 | 5.230 | 3 | 0.156 |
shs | null | 3 | 474.178 | 480.924 | -234.089 | 468.178 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 471.579 | 485.070 | -229.790 | 459.579 | 8.599 | 3 | 0.035 |
esteem | null | 3 | 232.834 | 239.579 | -113.417 | 226.834 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 233.562 | 247.053 | -110.781 | 221.562 | 5.272 | 3 | 0.153 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 363.857 | 370.602 | -178.928 | 357.857 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 368.939 | 382.429 | -178.469 | 356.939 | 0.918 | 3 | 0.821 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 384.004 | 390.750 | -189.002 | 378.004 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 387.169 | 400.660 | -187.585 | 375.169 | 2.835 | 3 | 0.418 |
mlq | null | 3 | 459.718 | 466.463 | -226.859 | 453.718 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 463.986 | 477.477 | -225.993 | 451.986 | 1.732 | 3 | 0.630 |
empower | null | 3 | 372.100 | 378.846 | -183.050 | 366.100 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 376.128 | 389.619 | -182.064 | 364.128 | 1.972 | 3 | 0.578 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 333.465 | 340.210 | -163.732 | 327.465 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 338.209 | 351.700 | -163.105 | 326.209 | 1.256 | 3 | 0.740 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 354.748 | 361.493 | -174.374 | 348.748 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 353.040 | 366.531 | -170.520 | 341.040 | 7.707 | 3 | 0.052 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 366.693 | 373.438 | -180.346 | 360.693 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 370.285 | 383.776 | -179.142 | 358.285 | 2.408 | 3 | 0.492 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 378.757 | 385.502 | -186.378 | 372.757 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 378.798 | 392.289 | -183.399 | 366.798 | 5.959 | 3 | 0.114 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 379.428 | 386.174 | -186.714 | 373.428 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 384.039 | 397.530 | -186.020 | 372.039 | 1.389 | 3 | 0.708 |
sss | null | 3 | 509.720 | 516.466 | -251.860 | 503.720 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 514.134 | 527.625 | -251.067 | 502.134 | 1.586 | 3 | 0.663 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 25 | 3.24 ± 1.17 | 26 | 3.38 ± 1.17 | 0.661 | -0.153 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 9 | 4.04 ± 1.16 | -0.845 | 10 | 3.80 ± 1.16 | -0.439 | 0.654 | 0.254 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 25 | 18.28 ± 2.75 | 26 | 18.08 ± 2.75 | 0.793 | 0.119 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 9 | 18.83 ± 2.44 | -0.322 | 10 | 18.62 ± 2.45 | -0.316 | 0.850 | 0.125 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 25 | 30.32 ± 5.11 | 26 | 30.88 ± 5.11 | 0.695 | -0.194 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 9 | 32.05 ± 4.35 | -0.595 | 10 | 30.81 ± 4.38 | 0.024 | 0.540 | 0.425 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 25 | 12.36 ± 1.91 | 26 | 12.31 ± 1.91 | 0.923 | 0.048 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 9 | 11.76 ± 1.64 | 0.550 | 10 | 12.60 ± 1.65 | -0.268 | 0.267 | -0.771 |
ras_goal | 1st | 25 | 17.64 ± 3.06 | 26 | 17.77 ± 3.06 | 0.881 | -0.070 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 9 | 17.21 ± 2.67 | 0.236 | 10 | 18.16 ± 2.69 | -0.213 | 0.441 | -0.519 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 25 | 13.20 ± 2.96 | 26 | 13.58 ± 2.96 | 0.651 | -0.325 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 9 | 13.17 ± 2.19 | 0.026 | 10 | 15.03 ± 2.22 | -1.252 | 0.071 | -1.604 |
ras_domination | 1st | 25 | 10.72 ± 2.26 | 26 | 9.42 ± 2.26 | 0.044 | 0.720 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 9 | 10.31 ± 2.22 | 0.226 | 10 | 10.69 ± 2.22 | -0.704 | 0.712 | -0.210 |
symptom | 1st | 25 | 29.12 ± 10.01 | 26 | 30.62 ± 10.01 | 0.596 | -0.445 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 9 | 27.87 ± 7.07 | 0.372 | 10 | 27.86 ± 7.20 | 0.820 | 0.998 | 0.003 |
slof_work | 1st | 25 | 23.04 ± 4.79 | 26 | 22.38 ± 4.79 | 0.627 | 0.312 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 9 | 22.59 ± 3.68 | 0.212 | 10 | 21.62 ± 3.73 | 0.364 | 0.569 | 0.464 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 25 | 25.88 ± 5.93 | 26 | 25.92 ± 5.93 | 0.979 | -0.017 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 9 | 24.63 ± 4.49 | 0.500 | 10 | 25.85 ± 4.55 | 0.028 | 0.559 | -0.489 |
satisfaction | 1st | 25 | 19.32 ± 6.89 | 26 | 21.96 ± 6.89 | 0.176 | -0.637 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 9 | 22.76 ± 6.01 | -0.829 | 10 | 22.52 ± 6.05 | -0.134 | 0.932 | 0.057 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 25 | 10.96 ± 3.69 | 26 | 11.69 ± 3.69 | 0.482 | -0.408 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 9 | 12.16 ± 2.95 | -0.668 | 10 | 11.21 ± 2.98 | 0.270 | 0.487 | 0.531 |
mhc_social | 1st | 25 | 15.12 ± 5.42 | 26 | 14.58 ± 5.42 | 0.722 | 0.180 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 9 | 16.82 ± 4.57 | -0.564 | 10 | 15.21 ± 4.61 | -0.209 | 0.448 | 0.535 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 25 | 21.72 ± 6.58 | 26 | 22.46 ± 6.58 | 0.689 | -0.210 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 9 | 23.69 ± 5.47 | -0.558 | 10 | 21.53 ± 5.52 | 0.263 | 0.395 | 0.611 |
resilisnce | 1st | 25 | 16.68 ± 4.52 | 26 | 17.15 ± 4.52 | 0.709 | -0.190 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 9 | 17.41 ± 3.80 | -0.291 | 10 | 18.33 ± 3.83 | -0.472 | 0.600 | -0.370 |
social_provision | 1st | 25 | 13.40 ± 3.10 | 26 | 13.88 ± 3.10 | 0.579 | -0.311 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 9 | 12.97 ± 2.51 | 0.278 | 10 | 14.94 ± 2.53 | -0.677 | 0.094 | -1.267 |
els_value_living | 1st | 25 | 16.88 ± 3.00 | 26 | 17.50 ± 3.00 | 0.464 | -0.399 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 9 | 17.92 ± 2.46 | -0.670 | 10 | 18.17 ± 2.48 | -0.434 | 0.824 | -0.163 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 25 | 12.08 ± 3.19 | 26 | 13.88 ± 3.19 | 0.049 | -1.098 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 9 | 13.93 ± 2.61 | -1.127 | 10 | 14.57 ± 2.63 | -0.416 | 0.599 | -0.387 |
els | 1st | 25 | 28.96 ± 5.57 | 26 | 31.38 ± 5.57 | 0.126 | -0.887 | ||
els | 2nd | 9 | 31.82 ± 4.46 | -1.046 | 10 | 32.74 ± 4.51 | -0.495 | 0.658 | -0.335 |
social_connect | 1st | 25 | 26.96 ± 9.50 | 26 | 26.62 ± 9.50 | 0.897 | 0.106 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 9 | 28.17 ± 6.74 | -0.373 | 10 | 28.48 ± 6.87 | -0.574 | 0.921 | -0.095 |
shs_agency | 1st | 25 | 13.60 ± 4.68 | 26 | 14.81 ± 4.68 | 0.361 | -0.562 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 9 | 15.12 ± 3.65 | -0.706 | 10 | 16.88 ± 3.70 | -0.967 | 0.299 | -0.823 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 25 | 15.96 ± 3.68 | 26 | 17.15 ± 3.68 | 0.252 | -0.723 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 9 | 17.04 ± 2.85 | -0.652 | 10 | 18.08 ± 2.89 | -0.563 | 0.429 | -0.635 |
shs | 1st | 25 | 29.56 ± 7.77 | 26 | 31.96 ± 7.77 | 0.275 | -0.744 | ||
shs | 2nd | 9 | 32.06 ± 5.85 | -0.774 | 10 | 34.95 ± 5.94 | -0.927 | 0.289 | -0.897 |
esteem | 1st | 25 | 12.64 ± 1.22 | 26 | 12.42 ± 1.22 | 0.526 | 0.190 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 9 | 13.43 ± 1.25 | -0.690 | 10 | 12.95 ± 1.25 | -0.459 | 0.407 | 0.420 |
mlq_search | 1st | 25 | 15.12 ± 3.29 | 26 | 15.38 ± 3.29 | 0.775 | -0.108 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 9 | 16.09 ± 3.15 | -0.396 | 10 | 15.27 ± 3.15 | 0.046 | 0.575 | 0.334 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 25 | 14.16 ± 3.92 | 26 | 13.54 ± 3.92 | 0.574 | 0.270 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 9 | 15.37 ± 3.39 | -0.526 | 10 | 14.48 ± 3.41 | -0.408 | 0.569 | 0.388 |
mlq | 1st | 25 | 29.28 ± 6.67 | 26 | 28.92 ± 6.67 | 0.849 | 0.084 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 9 | 31.42 ± 5.98 | -0.503 | 10 | 29.74 ± 6.01 | -0.192 | 0.544 | 0.394 |
empower | 1st | 25 | 19.76 ± 4.21 | 26 | 19.96 ± 4.21 | 0.865 | -0.151 | ||
empower | 2nd | 9 | 20.46 ± 2.93 | -0.527 | 10 | 20.40 ± 2.99 | -0.326 | 0.961 | 0.050 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 25 | 14.84 ± 2.66 | 26 | 14.77 ± 2.66 | 0.925 | 0.037 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 9 | 15.65 ± 2.50 | -0.425 | 10 | 15.09 ± 2.51 | -0.168 | 0.629 | 0.294 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 25 | 12.20 ± 3.13 | 26 | 10.42 ± 3.13 | 0.048 | 1.054 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 9 | 10.54 ± 2.61 | 0.987 | 10 | 10.80 ± 2.63 | -0.226 | 0.825 | -0.158 |
sss_affective | 1st | 25 | 10.36 ± 4.09 | 26 | 9.23 ± 4.09 | 0.329 | 0.919 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 9 | 9.76 ± 2.81 | 0.487 | 10 | 8.94 ± 2.87 | 0.239 | 0.530 | 0.671 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 25 | 10.28 ± 4.16 | 26 | 8.88 ± 4.16 | 0.236 | 0.939 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 9 | 8.73 ± 2.99 | 1.042 | 10 | 8.85 ± 3.04 | 0.024 | 0.933 | -0.079 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 25 | 8.20 ± 4.24 | 26 | 8.08 ± 4.24 | 0.918 | 0.076 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 9 | 8.96 ± 3.11 | -0.465 | 10 | 7.75 ± 3.16 | 0.200 | 0.406 | 0.740 |
sss | 1st | 25 | 28.84 ± 11.62 | 26 | 26.19 ± 11.62 | 0.420 | 0.809 | ||
sss | 2nd | 9 | 27.57 ± 7.87 | 0.389 | 10 | 25.57 ± 8.05 | 0.189 | 0.588 | 0.608 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(62.29) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.80)
2st
t(59.80) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.83)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(56.66) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.34)
2st
t(56.84) = -0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.03)
ras_confidence
1st
t(55.35) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.43)
2st
t(57.78) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.25 to 2.78)
ras_willingness
1st
t(55.44) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.02)
2st
t(57.69) = 1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.36)
ras_goal
1st
t(56.16) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.85)
2st
t(57.10) = 0.78, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.51 to 3.42)
ras_reliance
1st
t(51.80) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.04)
2st
t(64.83) = 1.84, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -1.60, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.88)
ras_domination
1st
t(62.03) = -2.05, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.56 to -0.03)
2st
t(59.48) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.42)
symptom
1st
t(51.02) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-4.13 to 7.12)
2st
t(65.99) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-6.55 to 6.53)
slof_work
1st
t(52.59) = -0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.34 to 2.03)
2st
t(62.90) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.37 to 2.42)
slof_relationship
1st
t(52.26) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.29 to 3.38)
2st
t(63.72) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.93 to 5.37)
satisfaction
1st
t(56.17) = 1.37, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.22 to 6.51)
2st
t(57.09) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.79 to 5.31)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(53.48) = 0.71, p = 0.482, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.81)
2st
t(60.78) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.67 to 1.77)
mhc_social
1st
t(55.00) = -0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.59 to 2.50)
2st
t(58.18) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-5.83 to 2.61)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(54.57) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.96 to 4.44)
2st
t(58.78) = -0.86, p = 0.395, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.21 to 2.89)
resilisnce
1st
t(54.94) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.01)
2st
t(58.26) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.58 to 4.43)
social_provision
1st
t(53.79) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.23)
2st
t(60.14) = 1.70, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.29)
els_value_living
1st
t(54.12) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.31)
2st
t(59.51) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.52)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(54.08) = 2.02, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.60)
2st
t(59.60) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.04)
els
1st
t(53.57) = 1.55, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.70 to 5.55)
2st
t(60.59) = 0.45, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-3.20 to 5.04)
social_connect
1st
t(51.11) = -0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-5.69 to 5.00)
2st
t(65.94) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-5.93 to 6.55)
shs_agency
1st
t(52.95) = 0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.84)
2st
t(61.99) = 1.05, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-1.61 to 5.14)
shs_pathway
1st
t(52.75) = 1.16, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.87 to 3.26)
2st
t(62.48) = 0.80, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.68)
shs
1st
t(52.19) = 1.10, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.96 to 6.77)
2st
t(63.90) = 1.07, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-2.51 to 8.30)
esteem
1st
t(65.56) = -0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.46)
2st
t(65.12) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.67)
mlq_search
1st
t(60.29) = 0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.11)
2st
t(57.73) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.71 to 2.08)
mlq_presence
1st
t(55.82) = -0.57, p = 0.574, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.82 to 1.58)
2st
t(57.35) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.02 to 2.23)
mlq
1st
t(57.20) = -0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.10 to 3.38)
2st
t(56.68) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-7.19 to 3.83)
empower
1st
t(50.79) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.57)
2st
t(65.94) = -0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.78 to 2.64)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(59.40) = -0.10, p = 0.925, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.42)
2st
t(57.13) = -0.49, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.75)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(54.59) = -2.02, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-3.54 to -0.02)
2st
t(58.74) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.67)
sss_affective
1st
t(50.60) = -0.99, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.17)
2st
t(65.69) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.78)
sss_behavior
1st
t(51.31) = -1.20, p = 0.236, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.73 to 0.94)
2st
t(65.74) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.88)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(51.70) = -0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.26)
2st
t(65.06) = -0.84, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.08 to 1.67)
sss
1st
t(50.40) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-9.18 to 3.89)
2st
t(65.16) = -0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-9.29 to 5.31)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(29.09) = 1.07, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.21)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(22.62) = 0.74, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.05)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(21.49) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.67 to 2.53)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(21.56) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.28)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(22.17) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.03)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(18.82) = 2.85, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.52)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(28.70) = 1.71, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.78)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(18.29) = -1.86, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.87 to 0.36)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(19.37) = -0.83, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.16)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(19.14) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.22)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(22.18) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.24)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(20.02) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.15)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(21.20) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.33)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(20.86) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.11 to 2.25)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(21.15) = 1.09, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.42)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(20.26) = 1.56, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.46)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(20.51) = 1.00, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.08)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(20.47) = 0.96, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.17)
els
1st vs 2st
t(20.09) = 1.14, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.83)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(18.35) = 1.30, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.15 to 4.88)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(19.64) = 2.21, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.12 to 4.04)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(19.49) = 1.29, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.44)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(19.09) = 2.11, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.03 to 5.96)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(36.98) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.43)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(26.36) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.98)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(21.88) = 0.95, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.99)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(23.10) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.94 to 4.57)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(18.14) = 0.74, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.67)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(25.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.96)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(20.88) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.90)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(18.02) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.85)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(18.49) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(18.75) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.18)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(17.89) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.43)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(29.76) = 1.96, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.63)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(22.89) = 0.72, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.14)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(21.70) = 1.31, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.47)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(21.78) = -1.21, p = 0.475, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.43)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(22.42) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.16 to 1.29)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(18.90) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.09)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(29.35) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.18)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(18.35) = -0.80, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.53 to 2.03)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(19.48) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.58)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(19.24) = -1.08, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.16)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(22.43) = 1.84, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.44 to 7.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(20.16) = 1.46, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.92)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(21.40) = 1.24, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.14 to 4.54)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(21.03) = 1.22, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.38 to 5.32)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(21.35) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.08)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(20.40) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.92 to 1.05)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(20.67) = 1.47, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.52)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(20.63) = 2.47, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.41)
els
1st vs 2st
t(20.23) = 2.28, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.25 to 5.47)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(18.41) = 0.80, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.39)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(19.75) = 1.54, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.58)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(19.60) = 1.42, p = 0.345, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.66)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(19.18) = 1.67, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.62)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(38.19) = 1.68, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.74)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(26.86) = 0.91, p = 0.747, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.16)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(22.11) = 1.16, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.37)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(23.40) = 1.12, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.80 to 6.09)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(18.19) = 1.13, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.01)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(25.77) = 0.96, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.53)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(21.06) = -2.17, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-3.26 to -0.07)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(18.06) = -1.04, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.61)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(18.55) = -2.24, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-3.00 to -0.10)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(18.82) = 1.00, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.34)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(17.92) = -0.83, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.49 to 1.94)
Plot
